I ran a search on the General Gaming Discussion forum and I didn't get any hits. I'm a little surprised since this forum was born from WarCraft 3 and RTS fans. Lots of sites put Company of Heroes right up there with StarCraft, some sites say that CoH is even better than SC.

I really like CoH, I even like it better than SC. I can't understand why CoH didn't get as popular as some of the other RTS titles though. I find that with CoH there are just many more elements that make each game completely different than the previous. Its not only about the units with CoH, the maps are a big deal. Map control is a big deal. There are doctrine choices that can completely break open a game. Anyhow, I'm not gonna explain why its good, 'cause if you played it you'd know why its good. I'm just curious to see how many other peeps have played it.

...and I used SC in the poll because it is the benchmark for the RTS genre of course.

It is awesome just been playing a bit of campaign though. Not that much into games the last 5 years. Only played a little wow. That changed in December when i played imperial total war, fallout 3 and CoH. Awesome games.

No Urin can't say I played much of anything lately either. You really should give CoH more of a try though. The campaigns are great, but you didn't really play the game until you have played multiplayer.

I don't play much of CoH anymore, but not because I'm sick of it or anything. Sometimes you just have to take a break from RTS games, that's all... well that and my buddy that I played with is about to have twins, so he has plenty on his mind.

Awesome game! I grow a bit tired of the story premice but otherwis very good. Much better game play than Imp TW.

Edith: I cant shoose between it and SC but i really do love my chicken balls.

__________________Give a player a fish, and he’ll probably try to sell it to an NPC fisherman.

Teach a player to fish, and next week he’ll show up with the book, “The Complete Adventuring Fisherman”. He’ll start hunting for some monstrous leviathan to catch and enslave, and he’ll be dual-wielding two fishing poles

The singleplayer wasn't my cup of tea, but I was fascinated by multiplayer.

I prefer StarCraft over it, but I can totally understand if someone prefers CoH. Both StarCraft and CoH are similar in that they can have me feeling really burned out after just a single game - they both involve so much multitasking .

CoH is a very 'tactical' game, and as with StarCraft, there's a lot of emphasis placed on positional warfare, even if the two games play very differently. :]

Grenades get me every time - you look away from a unit of riflemen for a second, and then they're all dead .

It's a pity that Dawn of War 2's multiplayer is so much worse :p. In Dawn of War 2, I find that you're using the 'retreat' button so much more than you would in CoH .

Quote:
Originally Posted by -G R U N T-The singleplayer wasn't my cup of tea, but I was fascinated by multiplayer.

I prefer StarCraft over it, but I can totally understand if someone prefers CoH. Both StarCraft and CoH are similar in that they can have me feeling really burned out after just a single game - they both involve so much multitasking .

CoH is a very 'tactical' game, and as with StarCraft, there's a lot of emphasis placed on positional warfare, even if the two games play very differently. :]

Grenades get me every time - you look away from a unit of riflemen for a second, and then they're all dead .

It's a pity that Dawn of War 2's multiplayer is so much worse :p. In Dawn of War 2, I find that you're using the 'retreat' button so much more than you would in CoH .

I don't really put much emphasis on the single player aspect of an RTS game. In my mind RTS should be all about out-smarting/out-strategizing another player, not a computer. With that said, I didn't find anything I didn't like about the CoH single player. It is based on real world events and I like that.

As for the tactical aspect of CoH and SC, I would have to disagree Grunt. I think CoH is much more tactical than SC. Unit placement and map control are much more important in CoH. The map control is obvious because the more of the map you control the more resources you get... but its not always that simple either, 'cause certain points are more important than others. As for the Unit placement, a well placed MG and sniper/mortar combo are a wicked combination, I don't think there is anything quite like that in SC. Also, placing a light vehicle behind big enemy tanks to prevent their retreat is also pretty neat, and I can't think of anything like that in SC (maybe 'cause SC units generally go down much more quickly so there is not time to do such maneuvers). Using cover is great, and getting into buildings are other examples of using the geography of the map. Being able to change the geography of a map is nice too... like destroying a bridge, or building bunkers, wire or tank traps.

Mostly I think SC is all about the units you make, how many, and how fast. Of course you have to know how to use each unit to its best, but CoH has that too.

Maybe I'm just a crap SC player (not that I'm a great CoH player though), but I don't think SC is as tactical as CoH.